DESAI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision against conviction under section 18 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (Act No. 23 of 1931). There is no dispute about the facts; the conviction is challenged on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional and became void on the passing of the Constitution. On a search of the applicant's house on 11.6.1950 in execution of a search warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Azamgarh cyclostyled leaflets were recovered. Some leaflets contained the constitution of the United Provinces Khet Majdoor Union, some were entitled "Conspiracy of Great Britain and America to start third world War" and the others contained communist propaganda. The name of the printer was not printed on any of them.
(2.) SECTION 15 of the Act lays down that a District Magistrate may "by order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, authorise any person by name to publish a news sheet, or to publish news sheets from time to time". A news sheet is defined in Section 2 of the Act to mean "any document other than a newspaper containing published news or comments on public news or any matter described in sub -sec. (1) of Section 4". It was admitted before us by Shri S. N. Dwivedi that the documents recovered from the possession of the applicant contained public news or comments on public news and are news sheets as defined in the Act. It is therefore not necessary for us to deal with Section 4(1). "Any news sheet other than a news sheet published by a person authorised under Section 15 to publish it" is an unauthorised news sheet. Section 18 makes anyone who sells, distributes or keeps for sale or distribution any unauthorised news sheets punishable with imprisonment extending to six months or with fine or with both. It is conceded that nobody was authorised by the District Magistrate to publish the news sheets that were recovered from the applicant's possession. So they were unauthorised news sheets. It is also conceded that the applicant made or kept for distribution or publication the unauthorised news sheets; he was, therefore, liable to be convicted under Section 18 if the Act was validly in force on 11.6.1950. It was contended, however, that it became void under Article 13 of the Constitution as soon as the Constitution came in force.
(3.) ALL laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with Articles 14 to 35, to the extent of such inconsistency, are void under Article 13. Under Article 19(1) (a) "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression". As the Article stood on 11 -6 -50 this freedom was subject to the right of the State to make any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. The Article was amended on 18.6.1951, that is, after the commission of the alleged offence by the applicant. The effect of the amendment is that the freedom of speech and expression is subject to the right of the State to make any law which imposes "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right "in the interests of the security of the State or public order" etc. It is further laid down in the amendment that no law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which is consistent with Article 19 as amended shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground only that being a law which takes away or abridges the freedom of speech and expression, its operation was not saved by clause (2) of the Article as originally enacted. In other words, the amendment of Article 19 has been given retrospective effect. Article 14 enjoins upon the State not to deny any person "the equal protection of the laws". Article 20 is to the effect that "no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence". The Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act was re pealed by the Press (Objectionable Matters) Act (No. 56 of 1951) and is no longer in force. But the repeal does not affect the conviction of the applicant if it was valid. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that Sections 15 and 18 of the Act were unconstitutional and became void under Article 13, because they abridged the freedom of speech and expression, were not a law relating to any matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State and denied the equal protection of the laws. With reference to the amendment of Article 19 after the commission of the offence (and even the conviction by the Magistrate), it was contended that the restrictions imposed by Sections 15 and 18 upon the freedom of speech and expression were not reasonable and were not imposed in the interest of the security of the State and were therefore not covered by the saving clause. It was further contended that if the sections became void on 26.1.1950 on the passing of the Constitution, and consequently the act done by the applicant on 11.6.1950 was not an offence, the retrospective effect given to the amendment of Article 19 did not have the effect of converting the act into an offence in contravention of the provisions of Article 20. The contention was that if the act when it was done was not an offence the applicant could not possibly be convicted for doing the act.;